1 2026:CGHC:13676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.653 of 2026 Dhananjay @ Dhannu Yadu S/. Punaram Yadu, R/o Ward No.07, Biladi, P.S. Tilda- Newra, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Rajesh Yadu, S/o Chandulal Yadu, R/o Ward No.09, Biladi, P.S.- Tilda- Newra, District Raipur C.G. ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tilda- Newra, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For Appellants :Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Ms. Veethika Choubey, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 23.03.2026 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.03.24 15:19:48 +0530 2 (henceforth ‘the SC/ST Act’) is filed by the Appellants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.519/2025 registered at Police Station Tilda-Newra, District Raipur for the offence under Sections 70(1) and 332 (B) of BNS as also under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 19.11.2025, after harvesting the victim’s field and transporting the paddy, a dispute arose regarding payment. It is alleged that later in the night, the Appellants entered her house and forcibly committed rape upon her despite resistance and thereafter fled from the spot. Based on these allegations, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present Appellants. Hence this Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the victim is a 42-year-old married woman and the medical report does not support the prosecution version, as no signs of struggle have been found. It is further submitted that out of 22 witnesses, 6 have been examined and the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. Lastly, it is submitted that the Appellants have no criminal antecedents, they are in custody since 21.11.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, they may be released on regular bail. 3 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. 5. Despite issuance of notice, the victim did not appear today. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the material available on record, particularly the statement of the victim recorded before the Court below, further considering that the medical report does not corroborate the prosecution version, coupled with the fact that the Appellants have no criminal antecedents, are in custody since 21.11.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the Appellants. 7. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. 8. It is directed that on Appellants’ furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, they shall be released on bail. They shall however, make their appearance before the concerned Court as and when so directed. C.C as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Priya